Salant and Salant, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 752 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of SALANT AND SALANT, INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 10-R-1130.-Decided March 24, 1944
Messrs. Joseph Martin and Gordon McKelvey, of Nashville, Tenn.,
for the Company.
Mr. Carl F. Albrecht, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Salant and Salant, Inc., Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Erwin C. Catts,
Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Lawrenceburg, Ten-
nessee, on February 26, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared
and participated.' The parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues, and to file briefs with the Board. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case,2 the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
Salant and Salant, Inc., a New York corporation, operates a shirt
manufacturing factory in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. At this plant,
' A waiver signed by the Union, introduced into evidence at the heating, states that the
Union waives the right to protest any election held as a result of this proceeding on the
basis of the charge of unfair labor practices filed by it in Case No. 10-C-1354.
2 Subsequent to the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation providing for the
correction of certain errors appearing in the transcript The stipulation is hereby made a
piit of the record and the transcript is oidered corrected in accordance therewith.
55 N. L. R B , No. 134
752
SALANT AND SALANT, INC. 753
the Company uses substantial amounts of raw materials, the majority
of which are shipped to the plant from points outside the State of
Tennessee. The Company's Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant pro-
duces substantial amounts of finished products, the majority of
which are shipped from the plant to points outside the State of
Tennessee. The Company admits and we find that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.3
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing the parties stipulated that prior to filing its peti-
tion herein the Union had requested the Company to recognize it
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees -within
an alleged appropriate bargaining unit and that the Company had
refused to accord the Union such recognition.
A statement prepared by the Trial Examiner and read into the
record at the hearing indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees within the unit hereinafter found to
be appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all production employees employed at
the Company's Lawrenceburg, Tennesse, plant, excluding mechani-
cal-maintenance employees, watchmen, clerical employees, super-
visory employees, and any other employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit. The Company denies the appro-
priateness of such a unit, contending that all production and main-
3 The Company, at the date of the hearing , was unable to furnish accurate data with
respect to the volume and value of raw materials and finished products , but stipulated to
the above facts concerning its business
" The Trial Examiner stated on the record that the Union had submitted to him 373 ap-
plications for membership cards beaiing apparently genuine original signatures of persons
whom the Union contends axe within the alleged appropriate unit, and that 15 of these
cards are undated and that the remainder bear dates ranging from June 1943 to February
1944. From the record it appears that, at the date of the hearing , the Company employed
approximately 510 persons within the appropriate unit
578129-44-vol 55--49
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenance employees working in its Lawrenceburg , Tennessee , plant, ex-
cluding clerical employees and supervisory employees with authority
to hire and discharge , comprise the appropriate bargaining unit.
The parties agree that the plant superintendent , the assistant plant
superintendent in charge of the sewing department , the assistant
plant superintendent in charge of the cutting department, the fore-
man of the shipping and receiving department , and the foreman of the
finishing department , are supervisory employees within our customary
definition and should be excluded from the appropriate bargaining
unit.
The parties are in dispute with respect to the disposition of the
following employees :
Floorladies.-The Union contends that the 7 floorladies employed
in the sewing department should be excluded from the unit because
they exercise supervisory, authority over the production employees in
their department. The ompany , on the other hand, denies that the
floorladies are supervisory employees and contends that they should
be included in the unit. The 7 floorladies work under the supervision
of the assistant superintendent in charge of the sewing department.
They supervise the work of 36 sewing machine operators in that
department . They assign work and keep production records for each
of the machine operators and report the quantity and quality of work
produced by them to the assistant superintendent . The floorladies
are paid by the hour at a rate higher than the operators and in addi-
tion receive $1 per week bonus . While it is true that the floorladies
do not possess the authority to hire or discharge the employees working
under them , they do report neglect or derelictions on the part of the
operators to the assistant superintendent and make recommendations
with respect to disciplinary measures upon which the assistant super-
intendent bases his decision . We are of the opinion and find that the
floorladies can effectively recommend changes in the status of the
employees *%vhose work they supervise . Accordingly, we shall exclude
them from the appropriate unit.
Inspection floorlady.-The inspection floorlady supervises the work
of the 25 or 30 inspection employees who are employed in the plant.
It appears that inspectors act as trimmers in the sewing department
in addition to performing their primary function as inspectors. The
inspection floorlady spends a substantial amount of her working time
repairing flaws in the work produced in the sewing department. She
also checks the bundles of finished products which have been inspected
and approved by the inspectors , and if the work does not meet with
her approval , she returns it to the departmental head or directly to the
operator for reworking , or she may repair the work herself. The
Union desires to exclude the inspection floorlady as a supervisory
SALANT AND SALANT, INC. 755
employee, while the Company contends that she should be included
in the appropriate unit. Inasmuch as she directly supervises the
work of the 25 or 30 inspector trimmers, and since she bears the title
of floorlady, we are of the opinion that her interests are identified with
management. Accordingly, we shall exclude the inspection floorlady
from the unit.
Assistant foremen.-There are three employees in the plant clas-
sified as assistant foremen who, the Union contends, should be excluded
as supervisory employees. The Company claims that these assistant
foremen are not supervisory employees and should be included in
the unit. Two of the assistant foremen in question work in the cutting
department under the supervision of the assistant superintendent in
charge of that department. The third assistant foreman works in the
finishing department under the supervision of the departmental fore-
man. The record indicates that each of these assistant foremen super-
vises the work of a substantial number of production employees in
their departments. It is also apparent from the evidence adduced at
the hearing that the assistant foremen occupy a position in the plant's
supervisory hierarchy similar in nature to that of the afore-mentioned
fioorladies in that they exercise the same authority over the employees
in their departments as do the floorladies with respect to the employees
whose work they supervise. Since their supervisory status is com-
parable to that of the floorladies, we shall exclude the two assistant
foremen of the cutting department and the assistant foreman of the
finishing department from the appropriate unit.
Mechanical maintenance employees.-The five mechanical main-
tenance employees in dispute work out of a shop located in the base-
ment of the plant. Their function is to repair and maintain all of
the mechanical equipment used in the plant. After receiving notifica-
tion of needed repairs from either the departmental foremen or the
machine operators, they are sent into the plant to make the necessary
repairs. Each of the five mechanics has been trained by the Coin-
piny, having undergone a training period of from 1 to 3 years. They
are paid an hourly wage ranging from 65 cents to $1.25 per hour,
which is somewhat higher than the wages paid production workers.
The master mechanic, who is in charge of the mechanical mainte-
nance employees, has the authority effectively to recommend changes
in the status of the mechanical maintenance men. Since this group
of employees comprises highly skilled mechanics whose interest in
matters of collective bargaining are somewhat dissimilar from those
of the production workers, and since it appears that they have
expressed a desire to bargain independently with the Company, Ave
shall exclude them from the appropriate unit.
Belt boys.-The Union contends that the two employees in the plant
classified as belt boys are assistant mechanics or mechanics ' helpers
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and should be excluded from the unit. The Company claims that
since these employees are maintenance workers, they should also be
included in the unit. It is apparent that the two belt boys are ac-
tually mechanics' trainees and that in the past the Company has
customarily reclassified belt boys to mechanics after their experience
justified it. Since they are mechanics' trainees who will eventually
become mechanics, we shall exclude the belt boys from the appropriate
unit.
WWatchmm,en-janitors.-The Union contends that the watchmen-
janitors should be excluded from the appropriate unit as watchmen,
while the Company maintains that these employees are regular main-
tenance workers who should be included in the unit. The record
reveals that there are five watchmen-janitors employed in the plant.
They perform janitorial work in the plant at night after production
work has ceased and are responsible only to the plant superintendent.
They do not punch time clocks nor do they make any formal routine
reports concerning their work. Since there is little community of
interest between these employees and the production employees, and
since the Union desires their exclusion, we shall exclude the watchnen-
janitors from the appropriate unit.
We find that all production employees employed at the Company's
Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant, excluding all clerical employees,
mechanical maintenance employees, belt boys, watchmen-janitors,
master mechanic, the plant superintendent, the assistant plant super-
intendents, the foreman of the shipping and receiving department.
the foreman of the finishing department, floorladies, assistant fore-
men, inspection floorlady, and any other supervisory employees hav-
ing authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVE,,
Because the monthly personnel turn-over at the plant is approxi-
mately 10 percent, the Company requests that the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the election be used to determine
eligibility to vote. The Union desires that the Board follow its usual
practice by directing that the pay-roll date immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Election be determinative of eligibility to vote.
We perceive no valid reason to warrant a departure from ouir usual
practice in this matter. Accordingly, we shall direct that the ques-
tion concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an
election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
SALANT AND SALANT, INC. 757
the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations
and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
Dnuc'1ED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Salant and
Salant, Inc., Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
clays from the elate of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes
of collective bargaining.